Also: "A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin." Indeed. A quiet cigarette afterwards as you listen to your favourite Johnny Mathis LP and then a promise to call her next week and swing by the pasture is by far the best way. It may also be a sin to roast your nine-year-old wife, but the Ayatollah's not clear on that.

And the particular claim I made re the passage above was that no legitimate source for this statement on the topic of bestiality could be found in Khomeini's work. Having read Mr. Steyn's response, I must concede that my claim has not been fully proven.

Now, a couple of things.

Firstly, it is pretty appalling that Maclean's should have published this garbage. They are, after all, supposed to be Canada's national magazine, and not some potty-mouthed blog dedicated to flinging rhetorical poo at vulnerable ethnic and religious groups. And it is reassuring that, in recent months, Maclean's seems to have ended its association with Mr. Steyn.

Secondly, the kind of "cheap joke" (his own words) that Steyn is playing here can be played, with identical results, upon any religion. One might point out that Europe's animal trials, which were carried out by both secular and church authorities, continued into the 18th century and had their own odd customs in regards to bestiality. For example, if you were caught sleeping with your sheep, the sheep hung too, which seems grossly unfair.

While (according to The Bible) neither men nor women may actually engage in sexual relations with animals, women are additionally prohibited from "presenting" themselves to the animal for the purposes of sexual activity. Which is to say that guys are, and women are not, allowed to flirt with their animals, as long as no tongues are involved.

Nuance aside, however, let me just say at this point that I believe bestiality to be wrong. In fact, I think the Ayatollah and I concur on this point. Of the three of us, it is Mr. Steyn who, with such statements as

A quiet cigarette afterwards as you listen to your favourite Johnny Mathis LP and then a promise to call her next week and swing by the pasture is by far the best way......appears most ambiguous on the issue. I would call upon him now to come out with some kind of clear statement against bestiality, if not for the sake of the children, then at least for the sake of the child-like men who read his work and may otherwise show up at his next book-signing with their newly purchased bovine lover in tow.

But these are side issues. Although I still hold that Mr. Steyn's writings are ghastly and ill-researched, this inference could not be legitmately drawn from the example I presented. That I drew such an inference is wrong, and I apologize for it most whole-heartedly.

PS. Is Khomeini the guy they referred to as "the Ayatollah of rock n' rolla", or is that someone else?

Meanwhile, we offer Mark Steyn a chance to make an apology of his own here.

75 comments:

I still disagree with almost everything else in your post, but that's about opinions - apart from that, kudos for standing upright when it comes to facts and corrections and also for accepting dissenting opinions in your comments section.

You are (IMHO) wrong, but honest, unlike some other parties involved in that debacle...

I'm sorry Dr. Murphy, but do you sincerely believe that to be an apology? True apologies don't come surrounded by more vilification and baseless accusations. You are a small, sad man, Dr. Murphy. Since the so-called "Doctour of Journalism" is so supportive of one journalist being censored and blacklisted for his views, I think you will find it fair to call on Ryerson for your dismissal for your proven ill-research on Mr. Steyn and attempted destruction of an honourable journalist. Unlike the smug, uncited accusation of being a poor researcher you level so cavalierly at Mr. Steyn, you have actually proven to not care a whit about research and citations as evidenced by your parting shot of today. I hope Mr. Steyn can forgive you, but certainly not based on the merits of your so-called apology.

If you're the "Doctour of Journalism", it's no wonder that the newspapers are dying.

The liberal sense of nuance at work. The "Journalism Doctour" instead of the "Doctour of Journalism". You got me there; it's certainly quite objectionable. I guess Dr. Murphy's fact-checkers must have had their turn in the rotation this morning. I'll fire them immediately.

That I drew such an inference is wrong, and I apologize for it most whole-heartedly.

It was obviously difficult but you've apologized and you should feel better about yourself for doing so (phrasing it in liberal-friendly style).

The reactions of your fellow flocksters, "Dr." J and those insufferably pseudo-intellectual little law twerps, suffer in comparison. No merry little lambs, they. We wait in vain for them to burst into the Whiffenpoof Song.

As your post count drops back down to its more normal trickle, you'll always have this moment of fame to cherish and a legend to share with fellow travellers, grandchildren, or your Wine and Cheese circuit: the time you got Mark Steyn's goat, so to speak. Nothing to feel sheepish about.

Much as the aging pug tells the bar about his days as a sparring partner for Muhammad Ali, you'll always have an audience for your description of the time you got metaphorically shagged by the Great Steyn.

I'll echo DHH's first comment - good for you for leaving comments open and unimpeded, and for posting the apology separately and openly (even if its phrasing does have an air of "the present debate situation has developed not necessarily to BCL's advantage"). You have a better appreciation of reality than The Journalism Doctor.

Ti-Guy, just accept that your side got spanked big time. If you liked it and want some more, fine - I'm sure it's not too long until the next pounding. But there's no need to act childish and go all ad hominem after your arguments fell to ashes.

First of all, what a failed apology! Dude, you are so loaded for bear that you stumbled all over your own wee brain within the sentence it would have taken to be truthful at least in part.

In fact, you were wrong. Very wrong, period. It is not that it's in question. Your smug assumption is squashed flat. To admit that would show a little class.

To start to half admit that you were kinda sorta wrong BUT!! and then to amble off into a whole bunch of things which... if you'd only cognated the depth and breadth of your wrongness...but hey that's praying and hoping for too much.

Anyway, thanks for trying, I suppose.

The second gawrsh is that the Ayatollah said what he said. Full stop. How you can consider it to be hateful to find out some of the things it would be useful to know is beyond me. What is this braying really about?

The way you have scrunched your brain and perceptions is apparently not adjustable to facts.

It is not loathsome for a journalist or writer to tell us these things. Frankly, I wanted to know what the Ayatollah said. He makes no apologies to the infidel.

What are you apologizing for? I know the journalism doc thinks he's going to get brownie points or to get laid in 1972 for apologizing for being a white man.

For you in your schunchage to make it an offense to report what an avowed enemy or our way of life said (Yeah, I know, how reactionary) is to show how impervious you are to and uninterested in truth.

If you conclude in advance things and don't care what's true and then are told what is true and all you have to say is "Yeah, but...", face it, you are not a serious individual.

Christianity (which I am not a member of, for the record) in these times does not have the high percentage of kooks and nut-bars espousing centuries old outdated out-to-lunch proclamations like you see in the islamic world. I live in an area with a high percentage of muslims, all of who could be called "moderates", and some of whom actually are. Scratch the surface on a lot of them though, and you'll see attitudes towards women and Jewish people (ESPECIALLY Jewish people) that will shock the bejeezuz out of you.

But kudos for the apology, but you could have left out the "but.." part. At least it was better than most lefties apologies where they say "I'm sorry people got upset about.." rather than apologize for their actions in the first place.

You said,"Nuance aside, however, let me just say at this point that I believe bestiality to be wrong. In fact, I think the Ayatollah and I concur on this point."

Wrong again. As Steyn points out in his latest response, the Ayatollah specifically does not think beastiality is wrong, only drinking its milk or eating its flesh after the act is wrong.

And you and "Dr. J' both seem to keep missing the point when you make citations to the Bible or Torah or 18th century animal trials. The quote from the Ayatollah is from 1979. Read that again, 1979. There are millions of his co-religionists who believe and follow this 29 year old writing. That is hardly comparable to 2000+ year old christian or jewish texts.

Why are most 'liberals' willing to condem any of the nuttier christian or jewish sects but totally unwilling to acknowledge the "elephant in the room"; the fact that large numbers of Muslims are fundamentalist in a way more detrimental to western democracy and liberalism than any other religion.

Ti-Guy, just accept that your side got spanked big time. If you liked it and want some more, fine - I'm sure it's not too long until the next pounding. But there's no need to act childish and go all ad hominem after your arguments fell to ashes.

Look, loosen the grip your lips have on Steyn's shaft for a sec and pay attention...*I* personally didn't argue anything because I haven't paid any attention to what the Robber Baron's catamite has written since...well, forever, actually. The first column I ever read from Mark Steyn was so unbelievably stupid...hissy, pissy, riven with unsubstantiated assertions and outright fabrications...that I knew anything else he wrote would be a waste of time.

He's a cretin. If he's scored some sort of point here, who the hell cares? He's still the jumped up, unschooled Broadway musical critic (*swish swish*) he always was.

But you Steyniacs crack me up (and not just because you're all as illiterate as he is). Participating in a cult of personality over this prissy and petulant ponce has got to be one of the saddest things I can think of.

Why not worship smarter, better-looking more masculine, muscle-bound wingnuts? Or come out the closet? Besides, when all you nancy boys show up fawning over Steyn, Five-Feet of Squattiness dries up...down there. You queers are spoiling the fantasy she needs to maintain when she's being mounted by that fat sugar-daddy she's stuck with.

Never use the word "apology" when addressing some factual matter with wingnuts. They never do, after all. It's usually couched in some mealy-mouthed excuse or, more usually, they simply redefine the language they used.

That's if they even come close to addressing an error, which is hardly ever.

Once again this proves that liberals will never let their moral conviction that they are right be swayed by the fact that they are wrong. You made a complete ass of yourself, were shown up by someone smarter and more logical than you, and respond with a fake apology and a really lame bait piece (I call on Mark Steyn to denounce bestiality!). You really are a great mouthpiece for liberals - you help everyone see what fools you are.

"Question for you Steyniacs: Why is his writing career so closely associated with money-losing rags or defunct publications?"

That's an easy one - because liberal blowhards like this guy do everything in their power to censor non-liberal opinions to enforce your ONE TRUTH. Heck, some of you even pretend to be conservatives and subscribe to our magazines just so you can pen fake letters of outrage, to even further censor realism-based viewpoints.

I find it more than mildly ironic that you and others are claiming we are "Steyn-iacs" and belong to a "cult of personality" when there has been no greater example of the cult mentality than the deification of Barack Obama, and no greater evidence of a maniacal mindset than the fact that even when shown up time and again on factual issues you still lack the intelligence and even basic integrity to admit that you're wrong. You never admit you're wrong. When you're caught being wrong, it's irrelevant - or a vast right wing conspiracy!

Anything to keep belonging to your little clique, right? Does it ever strike you as odd that you tell yourself you're questioning the establishment, while clearly toeing the establishment party line?

You know, I was sort of trying to make a joke before in my comment to Ti-Guy - a joke which was evidently either too subtle or just too lame - but now I am seriously wondering.

Why is what Steyn writes evidence of horrifying Islamophobic hate speech, but folks like Ti-Guy can write really revolting stuff that is clearly meant to expose homosexuals to hatred and contempt squarely within the ambit of Section 13 of the CHRA, but nobody (including the blog proprietor) blinks an eye?

but folks like Ti-Guy can write really revolting stuff that is clearly meant to expose homosexuals to hatred and contempt squarely within the ambit of Section 13 of the CHRA, but nobody (including the blog proprietor) blinks an eye?

Well, make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission then.

By the way, I don't have any problems with gays and lesbians (I donated to Egale for its campaign in support of SSM). I do have problems with closet cases, though.

I'm not going to complain to the Human Rights Commission because I don't accept the legitimacy of their authority. But I assumed - incorrectly, maybe - that people like you and BCL did accept the proposition that a government body may regulate speech. At a minimum, I assumed that you, like me, would have found it offensive to use terms like "ponce" and "nancy boy" and "queer" and "*swish swish*" as epithets.

But I assumed - incorrectly, maybe - that people like you and BCL did accept the proposition that a government body may regulate speech.

I've never argued that a government body should regulate speech. The tribunals arbitrate disputes, which is what all tribunals do. That's what I support. Or do you prefer how the Americans handle it? With assassinations and violent attacks?

I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose, or just playing the usual speechy games. This is certainly one I've seen before...catch the non-wingnut in some imagined contradiction.

I am American, and why yes! I do prefer the American court system's standard methods of assassination and violent attacks!

Jesus Christ.

Sorry for being imprecise. I could have more specifically said that I don't accept that a dispute over opinion speech is within the legitimate jurisdiction of a government tribunal.

That doesn't answer my original question which is why, in your apparent view Ti-Guy, it is (a) not ok for Steyn to call Moslems sheep-shaggers [if that's what he did] but (b) ok for you to call Steyn a prissy (*swish swish*) petulant ponce [if that's what you did].

As for section 13, it's you censors who have had your rears kicked this year. Every major newspaper has come out against it. As have PEN Canada, the CCLA, Rex Murphy, Egale Canada, and even frickin John Ralston Saul.

You guys lost and lost badly.

BTW, you seem like a decent guy, so why let ti-guy (who doesn't have the guts to post under his own name) violate section 13 on your blog?

Well, why the hell am talking to you, then? You guys elect politicians who don't even understand your own constitution and can't even stop torture...torture! You had 300 years of slavery, another hundred of apartheid, a bloody civil war, horrific domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City) and cultivate thriving, violent hate groups. Your government has intervened 72 times since the end of WW2 to destabilise foreign governments and you have the highest rate of incarceration rate in the World.

...also, your country is insolvent.

So please, spare me the bleatings about your first amendment rights. It seems almost quaint in this context.

You guys elect politicians who don't even understand your own constitution and can't even stop torture...torture! You had 300 years of slavery, another hundred of apartheid, a bloody civil war, horrific domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City) and cultivate thriving, violent hate groups. Your government has intervened 72 times since the end of WW2 to destabilise foreign governments and you have the highest rate of incarceration rate in the World.

Oh dear, now it's me who is being exposed to hatred and contempt by reason of the fact that I am identifiable on the basis of national origin, a prohibited ground of discrimination. Another Section 13 violation.

You don't need to talk to me, Ti-Guy. It's ok, really. But for the benefit of the Canadians here whom you do talk to (an identity, by the way, that I am no longer entitled to claim), can you enumerate which prohibited grounds of discrimination it is ok to hate and contemn, and which it should be a Section 13 violation to do so?

Ti-Guy - You don't really know if I'm a wingnut, as that term is commonly used, or not. It did use to be thought that freedom of expression was a progressive value.

In any case, I'm not trying to conduct an inquisition. I am honestly trying to understand the difference that apparently exists in your mind between diatribes expressing contempt against Moslems and those expressing contempt against gays and Americans.

And I have to have a personal stake in something to want to discuss it, or to object to it? What's your personal stake in my countrymen's misunderstanding of our Constitution, or in our apartheid?

Can it, Ti-Guy, you gay-bashing trog. I answered every question you put to me, including the snarky rhetorical ones. I avoided none. You've refused to answer the one I put to you no fewer than four times.

You have no answer, you're down with hate speech if it's an American on the other end, and you have a weird fear of gay people mixed with contempt. Bit of misogyny in there too. Your type is common, and sad.

BCL, I do feel a little sorry for the companionship you have to cope with. I must make a note to definitively not hire those super-fact-checkers when I ever need an attorney in Canada, lest I want my case screwed up beyond recognition...

So the irrationality that led you to claim Steyn's statement was factually incorrect, then led you to continue to toot your own horn after being humiliated in public, is now causing you to claim false credit for getting him kicked off the staff of a magazine for which he still writes?

And you are actually proud of trying to censor someone? How can you live with yourself, being so internally conflicted - on the one hand claiming to be 'progressive' and 'liberal', and on the other openly pushing for censorship of dissenting viewpoints?

I guess I should be grateful that, much like the common pig, you so willingly and publicly root and roll around in your own swill.

"Your country is insolvent"

Not quite, but pretty close thanks to liberals.

And doesn't it just sting you that our dollar is still worth more than yours?

While Mr. Guy is potty, those who actually deign to RESPOND are quite silly. The mewling child is most efficiently IGNORED. They quiet down after a brief period. I can only credit the short attention span and impotent musings to the juvenile need for recognition the web world seems to engender.

Sorry I shan't be around to chew the fat but I'm back to my occasional perusing of the most entertaining and excellent Mr. Steyn. I can only assume he must be doing something right in order to engender the blown tops of oh-so-serious left-leaning clowns. I must admit, it is one of the BEST things about being a conservative. Ta-Ta.

.Good for you, but if you support Islamists you must approve of how they treat homosexuals and oppress women; and that's not very 'Liberal' or 'tolerant' of you. Never be intolerant of intolerance..absurd thought -God of the Universe wantsall planets Islamic

Don't worry its only a matter of time before the USA comes aknockin, ready and FULLY ABLE to TAKE whatever we need from you. Like...............uh....wait, I'll think of something you guys have thats worth anything......oh!! Wood. We've run out. We'll take yours.It CERTAINLY wouldn't be you "cuisine" if thats what you call floury gravy poured over french fries.

I know I am way late to this party, but I found this entire situation fascinating. And BCL, you completely miss Steyn's context style: sarcasm. He is anything but ambiguous re: bestiality. The joke you cite was made for the purpose of mocking a modern religious/legal system that still permits such a heinous act. Sure, other religions and societies dealt with it hundreds of years ago (and, as you note, it was capital offense as far back as the 1800s), but Steyn's point is that islamic societies permit it today.

Oh, and life is generally better when you have a sense of humor. Steyn was clearly mocking the absurdity of the Iman's absurd moral teachings, and absurdity deserves mocker.